About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
, that there are no unanswered questions. the senators saying this morning the acting c.i.a. director morell told them the al-qaeda references were dropped in the c.i.a. talking points at the request of the f.b.i. because the bureau did not want to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. but late this afternoon, c.i.a. officials called to correct the record, that it was actually them. rice met with senator joe lieberman who asked if she was coached by the add f before her talk hoe appearances. >> she said no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house prior to her appearance on those sound morning shows. >> so the meeting today did not settle the matter. it certainly is not as far as these republicans are concerned. >> shepard: what's the response from the administration? >> in that written statement, rice who was joined by the acting c.i.a. director on the hill, said, quote, we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in the key respect there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. al
there was some cia activity there. what exactly it was and what the cia's told involvement was, why there was a consulate there, wasn't even a consulate, didn't do normal consulate duties. what was it all about? by won't know until the investigation is completed and released. >> senator ayotte said when you're an ambassador to the united nations -- i want to get your thoughts on this. she said, look, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities. i guess the implication being that she would have been aware of other things that were different or contradicted directly to what she went and said on television. does this cast any doubt on her story? general clark has made what i've heard from everybody who knows her that she is an incredibly honest and forthright person. >> well, i think there's a bigger question here, erin, and that's the credibility of the administration on these national security issues and whether they politicized a national security issue that led to the death of four americans. i mean, i do -- i don't agree that the ameri
rice was thrown under the bus and they all knew she didn't have the information from the cia. then i thought you would have to feel sorry for her. since yesterday talking to some of those to whom she talked i'm convinced in my mind that she is part of the coverup, she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. but your point is very good. i could not support her in the secretary of state if she is nominated. bill: give me a reason why. >> she is on the wrong side of the membership of the u.n. palestinian authority. she is on the opposite side of where i am. she has kept on funding you necessary cowhich is in violation of instructions given to her through law. she is on the opposite side of every issue that i am. for that reason i would have opposed her anyway. bill: it appears to me and many others when we listen to folks like yourself talk that this issue is much bigger than susan rice. let me drill down on one area here. because yesterday the cia acting director at 10:00 a.m. apparently blamed the fbi for changing the language and the guidance and the talking poin
. lynn >>> well, jill kelley, the tampa socialite caught up in the scandal involving former cia chief david petraeus, is now going on the offense. after two weeks of silence kelley's lawyers has released e-mails he wrote designed to prove she never intentionally or acted inappropriately. one letter to the u.s. attorney demands to know who in the government leaked kelley's name to the media after she received e-mails from petraeus biographer and mistress paula broadwell. meanwhile, "the new york times" reports the pentagon investigation into e-mails between kelley and general allen t top nato commander in afghanistan, has been narrowed down to between 60 and 70 messages that according to a defense official bear a fair amount of scrutiny. >>> well, if there is any doubt the holidays are fast approaching, here's a sure sign. tonight is the lighting of the world famous rockefeller center christmas tree. always a favorite time of year around here. right downstairs bill karins is live on the plaza for us with a preview of what the weather will be like, there, here, all around the nation. go
-up. she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. >> reporter: senators graham, mccain and ayotte tellingers after yesterday's meeting that the information let them more disturbed and not reassured about rice's benghazi comments that which portrayed the a tack as a demonstration that spun out of control. cia director mike morrell with rice for the meetings initially told her the cia references to dropped in the talking points at the request of the fbi because the bureau did not want to compromise a ongoing criminal investigation. later cia officials called back to correct the record that in fact it was the agency was responsible. there was never any intention to mislead on benghazi rice said in a written statement, the talking points provided by the intelligence community and initial assessment were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. that the white house previousing spokesman jay carney tried to put the focus on the current investigation and not ambassador rice's people are moe interested in talking points for a sunday sho
of the cia and ambassador rice. clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people was wrong, in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. >> drunk driving -- >> oh, thank you, mike. for sharing that. so ambassador rice -- >> what was that? john heilemann, what did we just say? >> i made a mistake. >> what did we just say and how did they pull kelly ayotte into this trifecta after lieberman starts running for the doors because lieberman is now fine. >> they need a third amigo at all times. >> so -- >> now they have -- now two of the three are women -- now at least one of the three are women. look, they're trying to recover from the -- >> all right, so andrea mitchell, please tell us what you think is going on here. >> well, i certainly do think that there is a proxy fight going on here. i'm not exactly sure what the dynamic is but mccain and graham said they were backing off the ledge so she goes up there thinking it's going to be smoothed over as her, you know, side man she's got the acting director of the cia, mike morale who is widely beli
that caused a problem. it was the acting cia director michael murrell who went with her to this meeting with the three republican senators, told them that it was actually the fbi that changed the unclassified talking points that susan rice used and then really made them mad about that. then hours later called back and said, never mind. we were wrong. so they didn't even -- he didn't even have his facts right in that meeting, which really adds fuel to the fire here. >> okay. and not picking on susan rice but i have to lay this by you. i mean, isn't it part rice's personality the editor at large of foreign policy magazine describes rice this way, quote, she's not easy. i'm not sure i'd want to take her on a picnic with my family, but if the president wants her to be secretary of state, she'll work hard. this is from a reuters article. so is it in part that senators aren't used to dealing with a person -- i mean, susan rice just comes out and kind of says things. she's blunt. she's not charming, warm, etcetera. >> or maybe some might say diplomatic which you need for the role of secretary
was wrong. ambassador rice said today -- absolutely it was wrong. i do not understand the cia saying clearly that that information was wrong. they knew by the 22nd it was wrong, yet they have not served that -- cleared up with the american people in concord to say that they were wrong. -- to say that they were wrong. what troubles me also is that the changes made to the unclassified talking points were misleading. just to be clear, when you have a position where you're ambassador to the u.n., you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. that is troubling to me as well why she would not have as. i am the person that does not go anything about this. i will go on every show. it is not just the talking plans that were on classified but it was part of her responsibility as an ambassador to the u.n. and she reviewed much more than that. >> we need to do a lot more to e. we do not have the fbi interviews conducted -- conducted after the attacks. we do not have the basic information about what it is said the night of the attack that was
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)